Posting Towards Gomorrah

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Spank. You need to migrate to FB.

Why would I want to go to the FB tea party when I can stay in the sand box and play with GI Joes with, Ty, Taxwonk, Adder, Sid, Slave, Club and Penske? I think we have much more fun over here.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since Spanky says that CRS reports are good authority, this summary from one repeats what I've been saying:

• North Korea ended the eight-year freeze on its nuclear program in late 2002, expelling international inspectors and restarting plutonium production facilities. Before then, the CIA estimated that North Korea might have enough plutonium (Pu) for 1 or 2 weapons. Since then, North Korea may have reprocessed the 8000 spent fuel rods previously under seal at Yongbyon, yielding enough Pu for 6 or 8 weapons. In 2005, North Korea announced it had nuclear weapons and was building more. It restarted construction on two larger reactors, and shut down its small reactor, possibly to extract plutonium.

Now you post a link to something that says that what I've said is incorrect.

is it fair for me to link to the stuff from 2000 I already posted? and how come people can ignore the questions I keep asking?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Compared to you, yes.




I would take the eight year respite in their plutonium processing, understanding that it is bad and yet the lesser of two evils to give fuel oil to a dictator.


No fucking shit. Have you read any of my posts? Do you have any inkling what my response to that is? If you haven't figured it out yet, you are a dumbass and I'm not repeating it.



Yes. Try reading any of those CRS reports. I know you can find them with Google, but you haven't shown you can read them yet.

I find the above quotes contradictory. My main point which you didn't address, is that North Korea continued with its nuclear program, whether it was plutonium or Uranium. That quote I keep posting, that you say you responded to, and critsize me for reposting because you say you have addressed it, confirms that. But the point of that post is that they continued their nuclear weapons program under Clinton. Why does it matter if its program was plutonium or enriched uranium? They said they wouldn't continue the program and they did. So they didn't do Plutonium, but they did to Uranium, which was a breach of the agreement, and still builds a bomb. What is so important about the Plutonium and Uranium distinction.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I don't think I denied this. I think I suggested it was stupid. North Korea, while poor, has the resources of a poor, medium-sized country. I've never seen anyone but you suggest that without the fuel oil we sent them, they didn't have the resources for a nuclear program.

If it is true how can it be stupid? The country has limited resources. If they focus their resources on a nuclear program, they can't focus it on other places, like perks for communist members, which will destabilize their regime. If we send them resources, they don't have to make the choice.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
They stopped processing plutonium for eight years. That was a good thing.

If they are still producing enriched urannium and moving forward with their weapons program why does this matter?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
North Korea built the reactor it's getting the plutonium from in the mid-1980s, so they've obviously had designs on nuclear weapons -- or the leverage from the program -- for a while. I don't think I suggested otherwise.

You keep saying that Bush's actions prodded them into making the bomb. I am saying they have always wanted one and have always been working on one.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Off the top of my head, I thought Clinton's Haiti policy was well-intentioned but hapless and ineffective.

He got rid of Papa Doc and the Death squads didn't he? Haiti may still suck but it is better off than it was under Papa Doc isn't it?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
And I supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

Really - you warmongering fascist. You realize we just went in their to set up Cheney's pipeline. The whole thing was a setup.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Look, I'm not saying that Clinton's North Korea policy was brilliant. Like Bush does now, he had a set of poor choices. He played for time, with some success. I started posting on this subject because I think it's ridiculous for Republicans such as yourself (recall: you brought the subject up, not me) to somehow try to blame Clinton for the current situation on the Korean peninsula. Bush took a poor policy and made it worse. He has talked a lot, but he has done nothing. Six years into the Bush Presidency and you're still trying to blame his foreign policy messes on Clinton -- that should be telling you something.

No I am not. This is the only thing I have critisized Clinton for (when it comes to foreign policy). Clinton got suckered by Carter, and went against his better judgement. Until 9-11 the US public did not have the stomach for the invasion of Afghanistan, which was what was needed to deal with Al Queda. I don't blame Clinton or Bush for 9-11. The only other thing I don't think Clinton did well was pulling out of Somalia. But it was really hard for him to stay with the Repubs screaming that he had to pull out, so I understand it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Why would I want to go to the FB tea party when I can stay in the sand box and play with GI Joes with, Ty, Taxwonk, Adder, Sid, Slave, Club and Penske? I think we have much more fun over here.

ummmm, most of them are the equivalent of arguing with PPNYC.

[Adder]

Originally posted by Spanky
This debate reminds me of two other decisions Democrats made that were a screw up and the fact that they still deny they were screw ups shows why they can't be trusted with foreign policy.

1) Pulling the support from the Contras in Nicaragua. Every time a Communist dictatorship took over the liberals accused the opposition to the communist regime as corrupt and terrorists. They also always claimed that this new Communist regime were good communists who were going to set up a good socialist system and not make the same mistakes as the previous attempts at communism and socialism. They have never learned the lesson. During the Soviet Civil war, the White armies were accused of being terrorists and corrupt so we pulled our support. Chiang Kai Check was accused of being corrupt and a terrorist by the left. Chiang Kai Check moved to Taiwan produced an economic miracle where the average citizen is worth twenty times the per capita income of the average Chinese. Of course corrupt and terrorist Chiang never inflicted a cultural revolution, great leap forward, or political purge on his country and his government eventually turned into a democracy. During the Korean War the South Korean government was accused by the liberals as a corrupt and terrorist regime and did all sorts of terrible things. Of course that corrupt and evil government has turned South Korea into an economic miracle that is a multiparty democracy. Ron Dellums and Tom Hayden said that Castro was a new type of Communist who wouldn't set up a regime similar to that of China or Russia. Of course Cuba is now an Economic basket case with tens of thousands of people in prison and labor camps. Then came Nicaragua. The Democrats claimed that Ortega was a different type of communist and would not set up the same type of system that existed in Russia, China, Cuba, Cambodia, and Vietnam. Of course once they started grabbing peasants’ land, these people turned into the Contras, but these peasants who lost their land were immediately labeled as terrorists by the liberals in this country. Kerry went down and met with Ortega and said he was a nice guy that we could work with. Of course the Contras pushed Ortega into having elections, in which "the terrorists" won overwhelmingly (and put a former Contra into the presidency) and still the liberals claim that pulling support form the Contra's was the right thing. Isn't it amazing how these evil terrorists that did so many terrible things won the hearts of the people, where Ortega, who was such a wonderful new socialist, the people turned him out? If the Liberals had their way (and Oliver North and Pointdexter didn't) Nicaragua (and El Salvador) would be no different from Cuba right now. The liberals were doing their best to turn Nicaragua and El Salvador into another Cuba, China, Cambodia or Vietnam, but because they did not have their way, these people are not now living in a country no different from a prison. Until they admit they were wrong on Nicaragua, they can't be trusted.

2) SDI. North Korea has a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it. Iran may be in the same situation soon, but the liberals still argue that SDI is a mistake. Until they admit they were wrong on SDI they can't be trusted.

You somehow got trapped in 1986, right?

[Adder]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Since Spanky says that CRS reports are good authority, this summary from one repeats what I've been saying:

• North Korea ended the eight-year freeze on its nuclear program in late 2002, expelling international inspectors and restarting plutonium production facilities. Before then, the CIA estimated that North Korea might have enough plutonium (Pu) for 1 or 2 weapons. Since then, North Korea may have reprocessed the 8000 spent fuel rods previously under seal at Yongbyon, yielding enough Pu for 6 or 8 weapons. In 2005, North Korea announced it had nuclear weapons and was building more. It restarted construction on two larger reactors, and shut down its small reactor, possibly to extract plutonium.

Now you post a link to something that says that what I've said is incorrect.

I've been away, so maybe I missed it, but do we actually believe that North Korea detonated a nuke? I have seen at least one suggestion that maybe they didn't, but I don't really know. I would certainly not put it past them to try to fake it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky What is so important about the Plutonium and Uranium distinction.

Read CRS stuff like that which you linked to. Plutonium builds a more dangerous bomb, and you need a lot of centrifuges doing a lot of work to get the enriched uranium you'd need to do something with.

If it is true how can it be stupid? The country has limited resources. If they focus their resources on a nuclear program, they can't focus it on other places, like perks for communist members, which will destabilize their regime. If we send them resources, they don't have to make the choice.

Since Kim Jong Il is one of the most lucrative customers for Hennessy cognac, you might as well blame the North Korean nuclear program on France.

You keep saying that Bush's actions prodded them into making the bomb. I am saying they have always wanted one and have always been working on one.

I hardly suggested it was a necessary cause.

He got rid of Papa Doc and the Death squads didn't he? Haiti may still suck but it is better off than it was under Papa Doc isn't it?

I don't recall that Clinton deserves credit for that, but you could persuade me.

You realize we just went in their to set up Cheney's pipeline. The whole thing was a setup.

If you say so.

No I am not. This is the only thing I have critisized Clinton for (when it comes to foreign policy). Clinton got suckered by Carter, and went against his better judgement. Until 9-11 the US public did not have the stomach for the invasion of Afghanistan, which was what was needed to deal with Al Queda. I don't blame Clinton or Bush for 9-11. The only other thing I don't think Clinton did well was pulling out of Somalia. But it was really hard for him to stay with the Repubs screaming that he had to pull out, so I understand it.

Unlike you, I'm really not interested in defending or attacking Clinton. I'm just offended that Republicans are trying to cover for Bush's total lack of a Korea policy by trying to pin things on Clinton.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Adder
I've been away, so maybe I missed it, but do we actually believe that North Korea detonated a nuke? I have seen at least one suggestion that maybe they didn't, but I don't really know. I would certainly not put it past them to try to fake it.

There were suggestions that they tried to set one off and failed. But they should have the plutonium to make one.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop


Unlike you, I'm really not interested in defending or attacking Clinton. I'm just offended that Republicans are trying to cover for Bush's total lack of a Korea policy by trying to pin things on Clinton.

What should have Bush done that he didn't do uptil now?

[Spanky]

[ltl/fb]

So, watching the footage of GN&GL, and wow, do Slave and Hank and Penske ever sound like Joe McCarthy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
So, watching the footage of GN&GL, and wow, do Slave and Hank and Penske ever sound like Joe McCarthy.

dissent. Gilligan's Island wasn't even written until the mid-60s. Was he using Guernica to humorous effect?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Spanky
What should have Bush done that he didn't do uptil now?

Well, what he did do was declare that we Defeat Evil, not Negotiate with It. It's a fine moral philosophy, to be sure, but its practical limitations are becoming apparent.

A Please Hurry Up and Die, You Asshole policy might work fine for the Cubas of the world, provided we have about 50 years to work with and no enrichment facilities sitting in Havana, but I'm not sure it worked so well here.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, what he did do was declare that we Defeat Evil, not Negotiate with It. It's a fine moral philosophy, to be sure, but its practical limitations are becoming apparent.

A Please Hurry Up and Die, You Asshole policy might work fine for the Cubas of the world, provided we have about 50 years to work with and no enrichment facilities sitting in Havana, but I'm not sure it worked so well here.

Not exactly. Bush's NK policy has been to demand 6 way talks instead of bi-lateral. The point of this is to include the regional powers in the solution. It makes a ton of sense, especially given that China and Russia are not only neighbors, but also on the Security Counsel. It also makes a ton of sense to include Japan and SK, because they are the nations most at risk with a nuclear NK.

I thought you folks were for multilateral diplomacy? Now I'm confused. So is it multilateral diplomacy if Bush cannot get it, and bilateral if he can?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Well, what he did do was declare that we Defeat Evil, not Negotiate with It. It's a fine moral philosophy, to be sure, but its practical limitations are becoming apparent.

A Please Hurry Up and Die, You Asshole policy might work fine for the Cubas of the world, provided we have about 50 years to work with and no enrichment facilities sitting in Havana, but I'm not sure it worked so well here.

What if we offered it an aircraft carrier, loaded, and 10 years of jet fuel, if they promise to tell us they're stopping for a little while again?